Iraq: Red Cross Report

Lord Marlesford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Bach on 7 July (WA 89–90), on what date the report for the United Kingdom from the International Red Cross on the treatment by coalition forces of prisoners of war and other protected persons by the Geneva Convention in Iraq was received by the Government; and on what date it was shown to Ministers.

Lord Bach: The International Committee Red Cross (ICRC) has not yet produced a formal UK specific report though we expect it to do so in the near future.
	As I said in my Written Answer of 7 July (WA 89–90), the ICRC's report on the treatment by the coalition forces of prisoners of war and other protected persons by the Geneva Conventions in Iraq during arrest, internment and interrogation, dated 10 February 2004, was a general document. It was formally passed to Ambassador Bremer and Lieutenant General Sanchez on 26 February. The senior British military representative in Iraq passed a copy of the report to Headquarters Multinational Division (South-East) on 13 February and to the permanent joint headquarters on 16 February, and posted a copy to the MoD that arrived on 27 February. A copy of the report was sent to defence Ministers' offices on 7 May 2004.

NITEworks

Lord Astor of Hever: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What progress NITEworks has made to date in meeting the requirements of network enabled capabilities for British Armed Forces; and what costs it has incurred to the Treasury thus far.

Lord Bach: NITEworks has been in operation since 16 June 2003. In this time NITEworks has completed two major experiments: kill chain development stage 1, and component CIS integration. It has supported UK involvement in the US Joint Forces Command multinational experiment 3, and has also completed initial work on three further experimental themes: indirect fire integration, ISTAR request for information management, and the joint operational picture.
	NITEworks has established a unique MoD industry partnership to develop our understanding of the potential of network enabled capability, together with a world-leading experimentation capability providing an environment for exploring the future battlespace.
	Programme interventions (equipment, doctrine and training) have been proposed which would significantly improve our ability to engage time-sensitive targets; to integrate our CIS assets across component boundaries; to realise joint fires; to co-ordinate and synchronise our ISTAR assets; and to ensure coherence of our joint operational and recognised land pictures. NITEworks has also ensured that the UK contributes fully to the development of coalition concepts for future effects based operations. NITEworks remains at the heart of our departmental approach to the delivery of network enabled capability.
	The cost to the Treasury of NITEworks operations to date has been £13.6 million.

Sickness Absence from Work

Earl Russell: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What attempts have been made to quantify the risk that a reduction in sickness absence from work may increase the spread of infection in the workplace.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Government do not intend to force those who are genuinely ill to go into work.

Olympic Games 2012: London Bid

Lord Fearn: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether a percentage of the extra spending, to be channelled through the Department for Culture, Media and Sport between 2005 and 2008 will be used in the ongoing bid for the 2012 Olympic Games.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No. The election of the host city of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games takes place on 6 July 2005. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport's share of the funding for the Olympic bid was allocated in advance of the announcement of the 2004 spending review and announced in the Command Paper 5867 presented to Parliament in June 2003.

Special Educational Needs

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many cases have been referred to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal in the last year; and how many of these were from families seeking:
	(a) a special school place and (b) a mainstream place.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: In the school year 2002–03, the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal registered 1,076 appeals in which the parents requested specific schools. Of these, 689 were from families seeking a special school place and 387 from families seeking a mainstream place.

Special Educational Needs

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In the last year how many families were not able to obtain the special school or part-time dual attendance provision which they sought.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: This information is not held centrally. Parents of children who have statements of special educational needs can express a preference for any school in the maintained sector—mainstream or special—which they would like their child to attend. LEAs must name the parents' preferred school in the child's statement unless:
	the school is unsuitable to the child's age, ability, aptitude, or special educational needs;
	the child's attendance at the school would be incompatible with the efficient education of the other children in the school; and
	the child's attendance would be incompatible with the efficient use of resources.
	Once a school is named in a statement the governors are under a duty to admit the child. Parents can also make representations for non-maintained special or independent schools to be named in statements, but LEAs do not have to name such schools if they feel one of their own schools can meet a child's needs. If parents are unhappy about the school named in their child's statement they have right of appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. In 2002–03:
	236 appeals were heard where parents wanted special schools (including non-maintained special schools) named in statements;
	132 of those appeals were upheld.

Special Educational Needs

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In the last year how many local education authorities did not inform parents of statemented children of their legal right to choose a special school.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Under The Education (Special Educational Needs) (England) (Consolidation) Regulations 2001, which are set out in Annex A to the SEN code of practice, all LEAs are under a duty, at the time they send to parents a proposed statement or a proposed amended statement following statutory reassessment, also to send a notice with prescribed information. LEAs must inform parents of their right to request an LEA-maintained school, "including an LEA-maintained special school", for their child, and of the LEA's qualified duty to "name" the maintained school of the parents' choice on the child's statement. LEAs must include a list of maintained primary or secondary schools, as appropriate, with the notice. LEAs must also inform parents of their right to suggest the name of a non-maintained special school or an independent school they would like to be named on the statement and include a list of non-maintained special schools and independent schools approved by the Secretary of State and any such list produced by the National Assembly for Wales. For a proposed amended statement following an annual review a notice containing this information must also be sent. Figures are not collected centrally on how many local education authorities (LEAs) do not inform the parents of children with SEN of their right to request a special school.

Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council

Lord Marlesford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have for the future of the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council.

Lord Whitty: A public consultation exercise carried out last year revealed widespread support for the work carried out by the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council. In the light of these and other responses the Government have decided in principle that the council should continue primarily as a source of strategic advice to Government, navigation authorities and other waterway bodies about the inland waterways generally. The Government have also decided in principle that the council should be reconstituted as an independent body reporting to and supported by Government and that its formal ties with British Waterways should be severed. The Government are at present exploring ways in which these conclusions can be implemented and hope to make a formal announcement about the council's future soon.

Orchards

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their definition of "traditional," "non-commercial" and "commercial" orchards.

Lord Whitty: There are no formal definitions of these terms.
	The countryside stewardship scheme provides assistance for the conservation and maintenance of old "traditional" orchards, the wildlife and cultural value of which might generally be lost without intervention. The majority of such orchards are small and contain fewer than 150 trees per hectare.
	Commercial orchards are those which are maintained primarily to produce fruit for sale. Non-commercial orchards are those which are maintained for other reasons; for example, for their amenity value.

Orchards

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will press for the inclusion of (a) all orchards, and (b) all top fruit in the single farm payment at the time of the 2007 review.

Lord Whitty: To date, discussions with the European Commission have focused on the introduction of the single payment scheme in 2005. Discussions on the 2007 review of the horticultural "authorisations" system are likely to take place once experience has been gained in running the scheme. That review may cover the future eligibility of land under orchards to attract single payment entitlements but this cannot be guaranteed at this stage. The UK's negotiating line on the review will be formed nearer the time after consultation with all interested stakeholders.

Orchards

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will consider using the national reserve to make payments to commercial orchard growers.

Lord Whitty: The detailed operation of the national reserve is still being finalised, following the public consultation which ended on 25 June. We are considering the responses received, including representations concerning the position of commercial apple growers, and we will make an announcement on the decisions as soon as possible.

Orchards

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the current rules applied to those entering stewardship schemes, in particular for traditional orchard growers, will be continued; or whether those applying under the entry scheme will have more stringent requirements placed upon them.

Lord Whitty: Environmental stewardship will be launched in England in 2005 to replace the existing agri-environment schemes (environmentally sensitive areas countryside stewardship and organic farming schemes). Environmental stewardship has three elements: entry level stewardship (ELS), organic entry level stewardship and higher level stewardship.
	There are no specific options for traditional orchards in entry level stewardship but applicants might choose to manage them under a grassland option. Opportunities for grant aided management of orchards will be available within higher level stewardship. It is envisaged that the management requirements will be similar to those that currently apply to traditional orchards managed within countryside stewardship.

Hunting Bill

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are their intentions concerning the Hunting Bill.

Lord Whitty: We intend to fulfil our manifesto commitment to enable Parliament to deal with the issue of hunting with dogs.
	Some opponents of hunting want this issue to be dealt with as a matter of great urgency, while supporters of hunting want nothing to change and many other people regard it as being less important than many other policies.
	We have made it clear that the issue does not have as high a priority as issues like jobs and schools and hospitals and transport, to name a few. But it is an issue that has absorbed an enormous amount of valuable parliamentary time, over several years, and before the last election we acknowledged that it was time to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion.
	We have made efforts to find a constructive way forward, based on the evidence, through the Burns committee report and the work of the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality which culminated in public hearings in Portcullis House in 2002. The proposals put to the Commons last year would have banned hunting except where a particular activity could be proved—to the satisfaction of an independent tribunal—to be necessary for pest control and to involve less suffering than available alternatives. The Commons decided by a substantial majority on a free vote to go further and require a complete ban apart from a few very restricted statutory exceptions.
	This House then considered the Bill but failed to return it to the Commons before the end of the Session last November. That was disappointing and the only way the Government can be sure to fulfil their manifesto commitment is now to reintroduce the Bill in the form it left the Commons last year. The Government are therefore giving notice of the Bill's reintroduction in the Commons.
	It will be a matter for the Commons to decide, but the Government believe that the provisions of the Parliament Acts will be available if an unaltered Bill is sent to this House.
	In addition to the Bill, the Government will ask the Commons to agree a Motion to commence the Bill's provisions in relation to hunting, but not hare-coursing events, two years after its enactment. Special procedures exist under the Parliament Act 1911 for changes to be made if agreed to by both Houses. This period will give those involved in hunting more than adequate time to cease activities which are to be banned, for humane arrangements like the dispersal or re-homing of dogs and for re-focusing any business activities on alternatives like drag-hunting or disposal of fallen stock if they wish to do so.
	These welfare considerations do not apply to hare coursing events. Violence and intimidation associated with illegal coursing events is a real and pressing problem in many areas of the countryside today. We have received many representations asking us to take firm and speedy action to enable the police to tackle these associated evils. That can only be done if the nature of the relevant offences is changed from that of trespassing to the activity of hare-coursing itself, which is a clear provision of the Bill. There can be no justification for delaying further in giving the police the powers they need to crack down on the criminals involved. So the offences in the Bill banning hare coursing events should continue to come into force three months after the Bill is passed.
	The Government have condemned threats of illegal action by some supporters of hunting and believe that most people involved are law-abiding people who are prepared to respect the will of Parliament. Extra time for implementation will make it even clearer that illegal actions and threats or intimidation are totally unjustified. If people wish to continue their opposition to legislation, they have the option of the ballot box through which to express their views.
	Animal welfare is also a major consideration for the Government—in terms of dogs and horses as well as the wild animals which are hunted. Dogs used for hunting are normally shot when they are no longer needed but the extra time for implementation will mean that there is even less reason for any suffering to be caused to them because of the ban. The RSPCA has offered to help with re-homing hounds—an offer for which the Government are very grateful—based on its experience of re-homing a considerable number of greyhounds each year. Drag-hunting offers alternative activities for those who have to give up hunting. And the horse industry in this country is buoyant, with increasing activity in a variety of leisure and sporting activities.
	As has consistently been the case, all noble Lords on this side of the House will have a free vote on the Hunting Bill. While this legislation is not a government priority, it is an issue on which noble Lords and Members of the House of Commons have expressed strong and consistent views over many years.

Manchester Metrolink

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What consultations took place between the Department for Transport and the business community and local authorities in Greater Manchester before the decision not to approve Manchester Metrolink was made; and what consultation is now intended to discuss the impact of this decision; and
	What assessment the Department for Transport has made of the impact of their decision not to approve Manchester Metrolink on new employment opportunities, economic activity and economic competitiveness in Greater Manchester.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The department has had a number of discussions with the lead authorities throughout the development and assessment of the Metrolink extensions. As part of this process, the department considered information on the expected economic and regeneration impacts submitted by Greater Manchester passenger transport executive (GMPTE). Any discussions with other local districts and the business community will have been for GMPTE to undertake, as the promoter of the scheme. The decision to withdraw funding approval for the extensions was taken because of another significant increase in costs. Costs had almost doubled since the scheme was first approved, despite the scope having been reduced.
	The department will work closely with the Greater Manchester passenger transport executive on developing alternative proposals. These will be considered on the basis of their value for money, including their wider benefits, such as employment and other economic impacts, and affordability.

Strategic Rail Authority

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the arrangements for the Secretary of State for Transport to give directions and guidance to the Strategic Rail Authority on how to exercise any of its functions, as specified in Sections 206 and 207 of the Transport Act 2000, are adequate; and if not, what deficiencies there are.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The arrangements are adequate. The White Paper The Future of Rail announced the Government's intention to issue new directions and guidance to the Strategic Rail Authority to clarify how the authority's responsibilities are to be discharged during the period before the legislation proposed in the White Paper comes into force.